The Paradox of Fiction

How is it that we can be moved by what we know does not exist, namely the situations of people in fictional stories? The so-called "paradox of emotional response to fiction" is an argument for the conclusion that our emotional response to fiction is irrational. The argument contains an inconsistent triad of premises, all of which seem initially plausible. These premises are (1) that in order for us to be moved (to tears, to anger, to horror) by what we come to learn about various people and situations, we must believe that the people and situations in question really exist or existed; (2) that such "existence beliefs" are lacking when we knowingly engage with fictional texts; and (3) that fictional characters and situations do in fact seem capable of moving us at times.

A number of conflicting solutions to this paradox have been proposed by philosophers of art. While some argue that our apparent emotional responses to fiction are only "make-believe" or pretend, others claim that existence beliefs aren't necessary for having emotional responses (at least to fiction) in the first place. And still others hold that there is nothing especially problematic about our emotional responses to works of fiction, since what these works manage to do (when successful) is create in us the "illusion" that the characters and situations depicted therein actually exist.

1. Radford's Initial Statement of the Paradox

In a much-discussed 1975 article, and in a series of "Replies to my Critics" written over the next two decades, Colin Radford argues that our apparent ability to respond emotionally to fictional characters and events is "irrational, incoherent, and inconsistent" (p. 75). This on the grounds that (1) existence beliefsconcerning the objects of our emotions (for example, that the characters in question really exist; that the events in question have really taken place) are necessary for us to be moved by them, and (2) that such beliefs are lacking when we knowingly partake of works of fiction. Taking it pretty much as a given that (3) such works do in fact move us at times, Radford's conclusion, refreshing in its humility, is that our capacity for emotional response to fiction is as irrational as it is familiar: "our being moved in certain ways by works of art, though very 'natural' to us and in that way only too intelligible, involves us in inconsistency and so incoherence" (p. 78).

The need for existence beliefs is supposedly revealed by the following sort of case. If what we at first believed was a true account of something heart-wrenching turned out to be false, a lie, a fiction, etc., and we are later made aware of this fact, then we would no longer feel the way we once did—though we might well feel something else, such as embarrassment for having been taken in to begin with. And so, Radford argues, "It would seem that I can only be moved by someone's plight if I believe that something terrible has happened to him. If I do not believe that he has not and is not suffering or whatever, I cannot grieve or be moved to tears" (p. 68). Of course, what Radford means to say here is: "I can only be rationally moved by someone's plight if I believe that something terrible has happened to him. If I do not believe that he has not and is not suffering or whatever, I cannot rationally grieve or be moved to tears." Such beliefs are absent when we knowingly engage with fictions, a claim Radford supports by presenting and then rejecting a number of objections that might be raised against it.

One of the major objections to his second premise considered by Radford is that, at least while we are engaged in the fiction, we somehow "forget" that what we are reading or watching isn't real; in other words, that we get sufficiently "caught up" in the novel, movie, etc. so as to temporarily lose our awareness of its fictional status. In response to this objection, Radford offers the following two considerations: first, if we truly forgot that what we are reading or watching isn't real, then we most likely would not feel any of the various forms of pleasure that frequently accompany other, more "negative" emotions (such as fear, sadness, and pity) in fictional but not real-life cases; and second, the fact that we do not "try to do something, or think that we should" (p. 71) when seeing a sympathetic character being attacked or killed in a film or play, implies our continued awareness of this character's fictional status even while we are moved by what happens to him. This second consideration—an emphasis on the behavioral disanalogies between our emotional responses to real-life and fictional characters and events—is one that crops up repeatedly in the arguments of philosophers such as Kendall Walton and Noel Carroll, whose positive accounts are nevertheless completely opposed to one another.

Finally, Radford thinks there can be no denying his third premise, that fictional characters themselves are capable of moving us—as opposed to, say, actual (or perhaps merely possible) people in similar situations, who have undergone trials and tribulations very much like those in the story. So his conclusion that our emotional responses to fiction are irrational appears valid and, however unsatisfactory, at the very least non-paradoxical. Summarizing his position in a 1977 follow-up article, with specific reference to the emotion of fear, Radford writes that existence beliefs "[are] a necessary condition of our being unpuzzlingly, rationally, or coherently frightened. I would say that our response to the appearance of the monster is a brute one that is at odds with and overrides our knowledge of what he is, and which in combination with our distancing knowledge that this is only a horror film, leads us to laugh—at the film, and at ourselves for being frightened" (p. 210).

Since the publication of Radford's original essay, many Anglo-American philosophers of art have been preoccupied with exposing the inadequacies of his position, and with presenting alternative, more "satisfying" solutions. In fact, few issues of The British Journal of Aesthetics, Philosophy, or The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticismhave come out over the past 25 years which fail to contain at least one piece devoted to the so-called "paradox of emotional response to fiction." As recently as April 2000, Richard Joyce writes in a journal article that "Radford must weary of defending his thesis that the emotional reactions we have towards fictional characters, events, and states of affairs are irrational. Yet, for all the discussion, the issue has not.been properly settled" (p. 209). It is interesting to note that while virtually all of those writing on this subject credit Radford with initiating the current debate, none of them have adopted his view as their own. At least in part, this must be because what Radford offers is less the solution to a mystery (how is it that we can be moved by what we know does not exist?) than a straightforward acceptance of something mysterious about human nature (our ability to be moved by what we know does not exist is illogical, irrational, even incoherent).

End excert (exerted chapter 1)

To date, three basic strategies for resolving the paradox in question have turned up again and again in the philosophical literature, each one appearing in a variety of different forms (though it should be noted, other, more idiosyncratic solutions can also be found). It is to these strategies, and some of the powerful criticisms that have been levied against them, that we now briefly turn.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Individual Freedoms and Security are usually at the fulcrum of policy and interpretations of the Constitution remain at the fulcrum of interpretations of "regulation" by policy in junctions of determinations to "goodness"; "good" as a "constitutional requierment" is only in need of having written policy as allowed by the previous described "Articles Of Confederation"(allowed for a constitution if "we" wanted one, due to arising need where "what's good for one yet is not good for an other"",

; otherwise, "good" has no need to be "written legal document" in order to be ""legal")...

The "State Of The Union" is both a constant and a periodic adress.

So far, News sources can continue to "update" articles...

i.e, a Google search result ("google" is a pretty credible search engine) displays a news article as written ""1 day ago"" and a description of that article:

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Its really ABOUT QUESTIONABLE (negative)News, isn't it? (Credibly Re-editable , retractable, but no way evident of future change of press "print for attention") :(

The To: or From:THE MEDIAhttp://www.richmond.com/news/national-world/government-politics/trump-first-100-days/ap/tax-story-puts-spotlight-on-msnbc-s-rachel-maddow/article_f93820d2-9c72-53f9-9f09-b60a96f4f3f0.htmlTHE PRESIDENT PRESIDENTIALLY ITS ABOUT OFFICIALITY AND RETRACTABILITY OF (blurts)statements by the President.Press limitations... ACCONYABILITY..BECAUSE THOSE REPORTS BY OPINION THAT LEND FALSE IMPRESSIONS AND IMAGES NOTHING OTHER THAN DISORDERLY DEPICTIONS TO THE TRUTH AND WISDOMS AND SENSE OF ORDER IN MIND WITHIN THE REASONINGS OF the press in respect to or observance of limitations and boundries of that of which belong to the distinction blururring all bounderies of social/ccival human/animal kingdoms/orders whether CHURCH, GOVERNMENT, citisen, and even other press outlets(NEVER THEIR OWN), NEVER THEIR OWN AS PART OF A 3 POINTS OF VIEW, ONLY 2 POINTS..TGE PRESS AND THE VIEW THEY FAVOR, MOST LIKED VIEWERS THEY FAVOR AND OR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS,PRESIDENTOFFICE PERSON, JOB IAL... ALL BLURREDRTED STATEMENTS...IT MAY BE A MAYBE .....THAT THE Trump ADMINISTRATION might be able to establish an on Par EQUIVOLENT TO "A WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHT AMENDMENT to the "Seperation Of Church and State" ...,.. i.e The SEPERATION OF GOVERNMENT AND STATE AND PRESS FROM CHURCH" ..MEDIA EXCLUSIVES....STATEMENTSAnd at the risk and assurance and encouragement BY A CREDIBLE MEDIA NETWORK? No...No risk to or for media networks.....even though...(this one would be an msnbc themselves?) similar interpretations could be made by tHE GENERAL pUBLIC that follows ? yES.GRIEF BASED MEDIA CONTAMINATION ? i determined by little discern of MEDIA BLURTS, and call it like an unrehearsed statement(un practiced)(unintentional)(like a sales pitches close attempt or prompt a new product PLUG) (within this post here: AS uncertain of affect or effect by presuming , assuming , and coveting facts, all as news)"wung" as in ""winging it""i.e Quote, RACHELE MADDOW,"It's been a hullaballoo around here," Maddow said as she opened her show. "I'm sorry if I'm a little flustered."(Lie, NOT SORRY) (MADDOW LOGIC ) "It ought to give you pause that his explanations have never made any factual sense,"Maddow said.This linked yahoo news storyabout the show's situation ispresented by an Ap reporter .

AP- and Yahoo News viewers could review this article ..and or agenda related?:(SCROLL DOWN THAT PAGE FOR THEIR(whatever search engine..i.e YAHOO!)CONDUCTING UNETHICAL AND UNMERRITED BROADCASTS AS ""news""find it helpful noting many other media outlets on graphs ranking specific broadcast/media by some standard of credibility towards viewer ratings,..... and more easliy discern among them..... also of some of what this suggests, is reality of media theme, or code,...?

What? FOR ; grief over election loss?ANTI (this)AMERICA AMERICANS??POLICY AND PROCLOMATION POTENTIALS..ABOUT conversation QUOTES (by the reporter/Politicician conversing)..FROM MEDIA RECORDED Presidential and the Elect and Appointed..?...THE PURPOSES , OF CHARACTER DEFAMATIONS, COMPOUNDED WITH SUBTLE SLANDERS, WHETHER TO APPEAL TO AN AUDIANCE OF PREDETERMINED DISLIKE OF AN INDIVIDUAL (OR many other topics) AND DISINTEREST IN ALL TRUTH COUNTERING ANY DISIMBIGUATION

OHERWISECDC ( where the inability of the FCC and PARENTAL GUIDANCE fails caution extent)... could report extremity(if it were not just a show)of the SOCIAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL impacts on SOCIETY; by reporting ills......CAUTIONS AND WARNINGSdo to inadiquait knowledge of the wisdomABDUCTED BY political correctness FORCED ON FREE PRESS, to promote politics of targeted audiances ... WITH GARBAGE AND SMUTT.THROWING STONES? Example.. i e , I keyword searched for some words in the bible; some notation reflects ""clarification of verses, and presentation of verses themselves may also reflect some to our media approach to presentations of truths, and approach rhetoric to our President, and try to be a little more considerate in loyalty , to balance their interest to a stop peoductive in the pathway to progress; that is, when they would like to promote the entirety towards as n any of the ""we""

Bible search:(m) That is, with what affection you come to hear the word of God.(n) Meaning, of the wicked, who think to please God with common uses, and have neither faith nor repentance.

Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

Be not {a} rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be {b} few.(a) Either in vowing or in praying, meaning, that we should use all reverence toward God.(b) He hears you not for the sake of your many words or often repetitions, but considers your faith and servant's mind.

For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

Media typically, ALL ARE READY , FREE, WITHOUT EXTERNAL OVERSITE... OH, I MEANT ACCOUNTABILITY... OH I MEANT ) CREDABILITY.. OH, I MEANT "THE SHOW".LIKEWISE, MORE THAN JUST THESE ON THEIR GRAPHIC LISTS, SHAREd also not included was the PRAVDANOT EXTREME OR FICTIONAL, just opinion collumnistation CONTSTITUENTS, ATTRIBUTES OF BALANCE)(ahhh!) simply ONE SIDED POLITICAL OPINIONS , BROADCASTING IN SYNC FROM VARIOUS PLATFORMS (NOT ALL NEWS OR PRESS FORMS OF INFORMATIVE BROADCASTS) OFTENESS AS CONSISTANCY MEDIA SLANTS

"It's been a hullaballoo around here," Maddow said as she opened her show. "I'm sorry if I'm a little flustered."""PUT ASIDE"" (googled with "wung" aside)
About 11,000,000 results (0.68 seconds)

put sth aside. — phrasal verb with put uk ​ /pʊt/ us ​ verb putting, put, put. › to save something, usually money or time, for a special purpose: Our regular savings account is suited to savers who want to put aside a fixed amount each month.

?banning 1) MADDOW for having No COMMON ""we"" SENSE ?HER NOT ENOUGH TO RELATEan UNDERSTANDING of the President much less "each other" of her version of we or they; IS BRILLIANT ONLY TO A limited audience, YET the limited presence is absorbed into the entire country.

What MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow's recent broadcasted contraversy has inspired is the fact that her report "is an act"; played out by short mini broadcasts threw out the day, starring Rachel Maddow announcing commercially slants of fraudulent schemes and new confidential documents (leaving questionable the new documents classified levels) by our presiding President ; in all, for the promotion of her show ......MEDIA NETWORKS ARE ALSO NETWORKING ANTAGONISMS WITH FEEDS RECIPRICATING ONE SIDED PASSIONS:See the""Rachel Maddow wung news""talked about within this Ap (associated press) article; the author noting the details himself , presenting more cross politicalk correct tooled and locked into targets andloadeded across the airwaves.THROWING STONES?

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

The missing words, "Presidents Day",
not included on the front page of a newspaper(?)
Inclusion of the words "Presidents Day" is appropriate..... EXPECTED(?) ..
.. So, inappropriate defines the Press publishing for not including the words on this Holiday.
Media senslessnous (?¿) ; ...

﻿

To the republic for which it stands

... inspirationally, is exclusion a sign of "Leftist View", "Propaganda", example of "FAKE NEWS", or a Flakey Error?

Included (on one of the mainstream's newspaper's{of those that left out the words "Presidents Day}, that front page included Scheduled Protests for the "day", and also made refrence (on the front page) along with articles of accusation and dissatisfaction of President Donald Trump, of whom his pictures were included; all in all, in articles on front pages of NewsPapers, who really ever reads the Front Pages anymore anyway?...

Curtis suggested that the polling going into the election was inaccurate and had a liberal bias. Like the 'Brexit' vote in the UK, Trump capitalized on the alienation of voters with the status quo, he said, adding that the mainstream media in the US has a strong left-wing bias, and voters rebelled against that as well. Bloom countered that there are many popular right-wing oriented media outlets such as Fox News, and there's a healthy balance of media options available in America. He expressed concerns around Trump's tendency to criminalize points of view that don't agree with him, and go after political opponents in court. "He's going to have a much much bigger stick now, and I fear for the safety of this democracy," said Bloom. Dick Morris and Craig Hulet also commented briefly in the first hour on the election results.

Corsi remarked that we have a divided country with the Northeast and West coasts having more of a "globalist elite mentality" whereas the center of the country is akin to the "silent majority" and has more of a conservative stance. Because the election was close, he suggested that Trump's agenda may have to be moderated from his original proposals such as mass deportations, and building a wall. The off base polls reminded him of the 1980 election when it was predicted that Jimmy Carter was going to defeat Reagan. Corsi defended the Electoral College over the popular vote, pointing out that the system allows all the states to have focus, rather than just paying attention to the big states.

Hogue, who lost his 12-0 winning streak on picking presidential election winners by going with Clinton, argued in favor of the popular vote. "If you live in a state that's red and you're a Democrat (or vice versa), your vote never counts," he remarked. Looking at Trump's astrology, he is unpredictable and spontaneous, and could be more of a uniter than he was in the divisive campaign, Hogue said. He was concerned that with Hillary's presidency, we could have ended up in a nuclear war with Russia. However, he wonders if Trump will even finish his first term, as "he's a rebel in a den of establishment special interests" and wants to go against "the billionaires that ring Washington DC and that make amazing amounts of money in the military-industrial complex."

United States Of America, President

The Challenge of The Voters is That, Over-All, It Is "Our Vote", that counts!

...oooh, it seems that "Our" in "Our Vote" could come down to "Our" Judicial Branch decisions that could put any election results into, one, a position to be revoted on by "Our" Congress, limiting their's to the Judicial Branch approved candidates of "Our's", which would limit the possibility to gain the popular candidate's victory (simply because there are less people in congress than when "our" vote is counted with their's) and therfore to give us a result of a victor of a more narrowed representation to that of the influences in likes with the majority of citizens; "Us"; or two, a New Nationwide Vote for "Us" all, to be "Our President".

In Short: This is NOT Over Yet And "We" "Are Not" "Hearing Yeah Or Neah About This:" At "ALL" From (Our) "Reliable News Sources" ...YET...?

ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT? DOES IT MATTER: WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG OR WHAT WE BELIEVE:

This post related the lack of reporting on the topic of "qualification by citizenship and candidates proven, proofs, and scrutiny of credabilty and public opinion; including whether the qualification is more an honorary custom or a definitive law?...:

When Do They Set Up 24 hours a day at a Court House To "REPORT?" ?; or should ""WE", "really"", ...care.

AGAIN - TAKE A REAL LOOK AT THE FIELD:

Is Just Plain Politics ?
SEE THE CURRENT Population 2,310,000Blogger's Profile - Locations:"United States"

The Challenge of The Voters is That Over-All,...
...::Yet there is much we can do--and must do::...
...It Is "Our Vote"!

The Vote is for "President Of The United States Of America".
That's what this blog is all about!
...
..so what else is there if we dont vote?
...
Then Go Back To The Top and start looking what you can find from The U.S.A. and Any Current President's found change that is "spared" for you!

iS THIS, FINALY THE LAST CASE?
Docket for 08A505
Philip J. Berg, Applicant. v. Barack Obama, et al. ... Application (08A505) referred to the Court. Dec 23 2008, DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. ... Philip J. Berg, 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, (610) 825-3134 ...www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a505.htm - 4k
Momentum by the consitancy of the Supreme Court's decision history of cases so far on this issue are largely in favor of "Not Hearing"; whether this is the last case, I Do Not Know.
My wonder is really more about the Supreme Court Establishment's Integrity; i.e.: if one of them says I don't want to hear it, then none of them will say they will either; if any think "we should here this" then one of them should; all this concidering our best interests and not the political structures branched dominion leveraging.
The math makes me wonder if anyone could seek a fair hearing when your asking it to be heard against or "about" one of the three branches, "by" one of the other three branches, of what the third and last branch has seeded; can this formula include a fair chance for anyone who is not part "of a branch" but a remedial thread? Thats why I feel The Constitution is the X-factor here. Isn't it?
Obama himself is a Lawyer and the dynamics of the Presidential job seems to pose a fabric of obstacle by its nature on the President's weeknesses...just like everthing else about the U.S. would be by its competitor's.
Obama could handle his case fine, I figure.
The case, though it seems, is about the people, only in this case the Fifth Amendment appears but does what?
Its my MATH, followed by case dockets.
ITS ABOUT OUR POWERS
The FORMULA is "2 Of 3" Branches are divided or multiplied by "1 of the 2" of 3.
Does The 3rd have any participation?
Or Did They?
The issue is not only will the case be heard as its already been pushed up to this level,
but a Part is an "X" factor; The Constitution.
The "3" are our Branches of Government.
The campaign was for change

Posted by An Olive branch, A Torch aflame, and An Oak branch-leafed; Written binds of EPLU RIB USU NUMat 10:36 AM

WHAT IS THIS THAT IS BEING PASSED ALONG IN SOME TANGENT OF "THE LEAST LIKELY TIMING FOR A DESCISION, PROCESS" For A Supreme Court Ruling that Could Change The Results Of The General Public's VOTE for The New President Elect?
This may seem out in "left field" (simply "way -out there, somewhere")
...
Whats the hold up?
And Who is paying for what?(if any one or anything)

The anti-lobbying rider in the Community Services Administration(CSA) appropriation act is broader than the generally applicablerestrictions on lobbying by executive officers, and prohibits recipientsof CSA grant funds from engaging in any activity designed to influencelegislation pending before Congress, including direct contacts withCongress.

Congress is under no obligation to make funds available to any agencyfor every authorized activity in any given fiscal year, and there shouldbe no presumption that it has done so.

The anti-lobbying statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1913, and the general"publicity and propaganda" rider in the General GovernmentAppropriations Act, have been narrowly construed to prohibit the use offederal funds for "grassroots" lobbying, but not to prohibit a widerange of necessary communications between the Executive on the one hand,and Congress and the general public on the other. The considerationsthat underlie this narrow construction are irrelevant to a prohibitionagainst lobbying by private persons receiving federal grants andcontracts.

Statements made by individual legislators and committees after theenactment of legislation carry little weight in statutoryinterpretation, and are not a sufficient basis for altering a conclusionrequired by the plain meaning of the statutory language.

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OFMANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

On January 19, 1981, the Director of the Community ServicesAdministration (CSA) published in the Federal Register an interpretiveruling by the CSA General Counsel discussing the legal effect of an"anti-lobbying" rider that applies to CSA appropriations. See 46 Fed.Reg. 4919. The history and language of the rider are set out in themargin. /1/ In his ruling, the CSA General Counsel concluded that therider, in its application to CSA grantees, imposes anti-lobbyingrestrictions that are no more stringent than those imposed uponexecutive officers and employees by 18 U.S.C. Section 1913 /2/ and bythe traditional "publicity and propaganda" rider contained in theTreasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act./3/ In reliance upon that legal conclusion, the Director of CSA "waived"certain anti-lobbying restrictions contained in existing CSA grants.Those restrictions were apparently based upon an older, more stringentinterpretation of the rider. You have asked whether, in the opinion ofthis Office, the conclusions reached by the General Counsel were legallycorrect.

I.

The CSA rider imposes two different kinds of restrictions on the useof appropriated funds. The first, set forth in the first sentence of therider, prohibits the use of funds "for publicity and propagandapurposes" or for the preparation or use of any "kit, pamphlet, booklet,publication, radio, television, or film presentation designed to supportor defeat legislation pending before Congress, except in presentation toCongress itself." This language is similar to the language of thetraditional "publicity and propaganda" rider contained in the GeneralAppropriations Act. Unlike the traditional rider, however, the CSA ridercatalogs the kinds of materials and "presentations" for whichappropriated funds may not be expended (kits, pamphlets, etc.), and itauthorizes at least two kinds of expenditures. It expressly permitsexpenditures for the maintenance of "normal and recognizedexecutive-legislative relationships," and it seems to contemplate thatfunds may be expended for the preparation of kits, pamphlets, and other"presentations" that are made directly to Congress itself.

The second restriction is set out in the second sentence of therider. Unlike the first, it applies only to persons who receiveappropriated funds under government grants or contracts. The secondsentence states flatly that "(n)o part of any appropriation contained inthis Act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant orcontract recipient or agent acting for such recipient to engage in anyactivity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pendingbefore Congress." Because this language forbids the payment of expensesfor "any activity" designed to influence legislation pending beforeCongress, it is far broader than the language of the traditional"publicity and propaganda" rider. Moreover, because it applies expresslyto grantees and contractors and makes no express provision for directcontacts with Congress, it is quite unlike the language of the"anti-lobbying" statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1913.

Posted by An Olive branch, A Torch aflame, and An Oak branch-leafed; Written binds of EPLU RIB USU NUMat 6:29 PM

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

I don't know if any of the cases involving the Supreme Court and this years (2008) election will change or add to the following result I picked up on the Cornell Univesity ""Search "LII" ""
KEYWORDING "PRESIDENT" and clicking onto the results found under "Elections":
election law: an overview
Citizens make choices by voting in elections. Two types of elections exist: general elections and special elections. A general election occurs at a regularly scheduled interval as mandated by law. A special election would be held when something arises that does not arise on a regular basis or routine. For instance, if an elected-office suddenly becomes vacant or a legislature wants to put a referendum before the voters, then they can use a special election.
The electoral process ensures that no leader can take control for an extended amount of time without forcing the elected-official to answer to the will of the people. Nevertheless, government must play an active role in structuring elections and the electoral process. Consequently, individual states carry out the electoral process by following their own state laws. Sections 2 and 4 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution provide states the right to choose their own Representatives and Senators for the United States Congress. The 17th Amendment, however, mandates that the people directly elect the senators, and explicitly bars state legislatures from choosing the state's U.S. Senators.
Presidential Elections: The Electoral College
In Presidential elections, the people of the respective states vote for a Presidential candidate by choosing that candidate's slate of Electors. See Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. After the state's citizens have chosen a slate of Electors, the Electors then formally elect the President and Vice-President by casting their respective votes. When all states' slates of Electors arrive to cast their votes, the aggregate group makes up that which has come to be known as "the Electoral College."
The Office of the Federal Register coordinates the Electoral College. Comprised of 538 Electors, the number of total votes equals the aggregate number of Representatives and Senators that currently make up Congress. The number of Electors in a given state's slate equals its number of U.S. Representatives plus two. The number of Representatives that a state has is determined by considering the state's population in proportion to all other states. Accordingly, each state receives a proportional number of Representatives. The government takes the national census every ten years to determine each state's population. When this occurs, a state potentially can gain or lose Congressmen, which affect the number of Electors, known as electoral votes, that the state will have at the Electoral College.
Of the 50 states, forty-eight have a "winner-take-all" system. Washington D.C. follows the same system. A winner-take-all system assigns that state's entire slate of Electors to the candidate who won the popular vote, regardless of how close the popular vote in the state actually was. Maine and Nebraska use different systems in which they divide their states into districts and assign one electoral vote per district. The Presidential candidate who wins a particular district receives that district's electoral vote. Under this system, Maine and Nebraska could potentially split their electoral votes between candidates, although no Presidential election has ever witnessed either state splitting. No federal law exists that binds Electors to vote for a certain candidate. However, twenty-six states have developed laws for this purpose. After each state has submitted their Electors' votes, the votes are counted and a President and Vice-President are named. Usually, the Electoral College emerges with a winner identical to the U.S. popular vote. However, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote.
Congressional Elections
States may individually decide how to carry out their elections for Representatives, Senators and electors. Each state differs in structure, with most assigning administrative offices the task of running elections. States also differ on rules concerning when, where and how citizens may vote (see Congressional Districts). While the people of the respective states have always directly elected Representatives, most individual state legislatures chose the U.S. Senators that would represent that state until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. A product of the Progressive Era's call for more democracy, the 17th Amendment gave citizens more influence over the federal government.
Changes in Election Law
While Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are rare, seven of the twenty-seven Amendments that have passed deal with altering the process of electing the United States Federal Government. The 12th Amendment clarifies that each Elector of the Electoral College must cast two votes - one for President and one for Vice President. The 15th Amendment disallows abridging the right to vote on the basis of race, and the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. The 17th Amendment gives the people the right to directly elect their U.S. Senators. The 23rd Amendment granted electoral votes to Washington D.C. The 24th Amendment eliminated Poll Taxes, and the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
Recently-passed federal statutes have created a means for military personnel and overseas citizens to vote and have aided the elderly and disabled citizens' ability to vote. In 1993 Congress passed the "motor voter" law, which enables citizens to register to vote when they apply for driver's licenses.
Some states have recently begun adopting voter identification laws as well in an effort to combat voter fraud. These laws require voters to present identification when they arrive at the polling location to vote. Many felt that Indiana had the most stringent requirement because it required voters to present photo identification. Because some felt that the statute disproportionately burdened the elderly and the minorities, the statute was challenged and went before the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion (07-21). The Supreme Court, however, upheld the law.
Campaign Reform
In 1971 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to closely regulate federal elections. The law increased necessary disclosure of federal campaign contributions and created the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to administer federal elections. In 1979 the FEC permitted political parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on certain activities, and soft money went unregulated by the FEC. Hard money refers to funding donated directly to a campaign or political party, whereas soft money refers to funding contributed to organizations, often known as 527s, that advocate issues and indirectly advocate a candidate, without specifically advocating for the election or defeat of a particular candidate.
Following the law's passage, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the law's constitutionality in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), a landmark decision concerning the interplay between campaign regulations and First Amendment rights. In Buckley the Supreme Court ruled that the FEC could regulate and limit donations to campaigns but could not cap the amount of money that a political campaign could spend because doing so violates the First Amendment. Buckley also held that the FEC could not constitutionally regulate soft money.
Over the next three decades, concerns with the increasing costs of conducting a political campaign did not subside, and the popularity of soft money drove much of this concern. In accordance with this concern, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold (Bipartisan Campaign Reform) Act of 2002 (BCRA). The BCRA amended the FECA to add a provision, which disallowed federal candidates from using corporate and union funding to launch television ads on satellite or cable within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. A second amendment prohibited candidates and political parties at both the national and state levels from spending soft money on federal elections.
Immediately after the President signed the law, members of the U.S. Congress challenged the law's constitutionality before the U.S. Supreme Court. In McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Court upheld the Act's key provisions.
However, with two new justices on the bench in 2006, the Supreme Court reengaged the campaign finance debate, striking down a Vermont law because the low campaign expenditure ceiling it implemented was disproportionate to the goal it advanced. See Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006).
Then, in 2007 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. 551 U.S. ___. As it applied to Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court struck down the portion of the BCRA that prohibited organizations from running issue ads within a certain number of days of the election because the provision restricted political speech and therefore violated the First Amendment rights of the organization.
The Supreme Court also expounded on the BCRA's provision known as "the Millionaire's Amendment" in the 2008 case of Davis v. FEC (07-320). The Millionaire's Amendment only affected candidates who had spent in excess of $350,000 in personal funds on their own campaign. The BCRA permitted the opponents of these candidates to receive triple the amount of personal contributions typically allowed and permitted the opponents to accept coordinated party contributions without limit, but the BCRA held self-financing candidates to the normal limit. Finding that the provision burdened free speech and associational rights, the Supreme Court struck down the provision as well. The combination of Davis and Wisconsin Right to Life leaves the BCRA in serious limbo.
For more information, see LII's Backgrounder on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Cases.
Categories:
wexconstitutional lawgovernmental organization power and procedureoverview

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

LXXVIII Miss Arendt's only criticism of the American founding fathers is that ... ing a civil society, and the term "appeal to heaven," which does appear, ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(196312)78%3A4%3C620%3AOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 - Similar pagesJSTOR: America's Political Heritage: Revolution and Free ...
4~ The artless "Appeal to Heaven" posed a challenge for our Constitution mak- a9 ..... to endure and to be adapted to the various crises in human affairs. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(197622)91%3A2%3C193%3AAPHRAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P - Similar pages

WHO NOW IS 2008 campaign's BEST FOR THE ROLE
OF THE JOB OF
THE PRESIDENT
OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2008 Presidential Candidates in All Parties

All "Announced" candidates have formed or announced a Presidential exploratory or campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a statement of candidacy. "Potential" candidates have publicly expressed an interest in a Presidential campaign or their interest has been suggested by the media.

Blogger News

This morning we posted an update about Blogspot to Google’s Security Blog https://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/09/https-support-coming-to-blogspot.html. Since 2008, we've worked to encrypt the connections between our users and Google servers. Over the years we've announced that Search, Gmail, Drive, and many other products have encrypted connections by default, and most recently, we'...

There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge.
Experience has taught us that-
- no one nation has the power or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides-
-that extending our commitments does not always increase our security-
-that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat-
-that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own-
-that nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion-
-and that no two nations or situations are exactly alike.